tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News September 14, 2014 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
way, the congress and military need synergy. kevin says we need to go all in or not at all. charles says he thinks we should bomb isis until the threat is small for boots on the ground. thank you for watching fox news. "fox news sunday" up next. i'm john roberts in for chris wallace. isis extremists release another execution video. this time of a british aide worker. and president obama takes his isis strategy to the american people and announcing an expan expanded military operation in iraq and syria. >> our objective is clear. we will degrade and ultimate destroy isil through sustained counterterrorism strategy. >> we'll break down the president's plan with dennis
mcdonagh. >> the president has made clear he doesn't want u.s. boots on the ground. well, somebody's boots have to be on the ground. >> we'll ask former cia michael hayden who says the president's strategy is tracking. and we'll get the latest from lindsey graham and jack reed. then the nfl launches an independent investigation into roger goodell's handling of the ray rice domestic violence case. >> we'll discuss the continued fallout with attorney wendy murphy and sportscaster jim grey, who calls the scandal a massive failure. plus, is hillary clinton beginning to mobilize her 2016 campaign. our sunday panel weighs in. all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. islamic state jihadist is have released a third video as
proclaimed warning to america agency allies. it shows the execution of british aide worker david haynes who was abducted in syria in 2013 working for an international aid agency, helping the syrian people. joining us from london is senior foreign affairs correspondent amy kellogg. >> reporter: the uk's cobra, or emergency meeting, has just broken up with david cameron vowing now more than ever that they'll continue the fight against isis. >> david has been murdered in the most callous and brutal way imaginable by an organization that is the embodiment of evil. we'll hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice no matter how long it takes. >> reporter: david haynes, the 44-year-old british aid worker and father of two had been delivering humanitarian aid in syria when he was kidnapped last year.
his brother issued a statement saying david was most alive and enthusiastic in his humanitarian roles. now, as soon as the news broke late last night, british prime minister david cameron rushed back to downing street pep called the killing despicable and appalling. president obama issued a statement as well expressing outrage at haines' killing. president obama reiterated his goal of drawing together a very broad international coalition to fight isis. the u.s., though, clearly on the lead in this effort. at this point britain is not involved in air strikes and has ruled out at this point boots on the ground. >> and we, of course, will be talking at length about that this morning. amy kellogg in london. thanks. good to see you. the latest execution comes days after president obama delivered a prime time address to roll out his plan to defeat
isis. it involves broader air strikes in iraq and strikes in syria. earlier, i sat down with white house chief of staff dennis mcdone ogu . >> the white house has been for the last few days playing a semantic game whether we're at war or not, after the releast of this latest video of david haines being decapitated. is there any question we're at war? >> i don't know what semantic you're talking about but we've been serious from the start. as much as we've been at war with al qaeda, we obviously are in a similar fashion at war with isis. what we also said is this is not going to be like the iraq war. we're not talking about tens of thousands of troops on the ground but we're talking about us using our unique capabilities of air power, of isr, and
supporting those on the ground who are fighting isil, including in syria, the syrian opposition fighting isil right now. we're proud with the progress we're making on the hill with republicans and democrats, thanks to the speaker and others. passing hopefully this week the president's proposal to train and equip that syrian opposition that's fighting isil right now. >> when i talk about semantics, i mean the secretary of state one day comes out and says, i wouldn't describe this as war. that's a wrong terminology to use. i don't want people to get into a war-fever pitch about this and then the next day the white house and pentagon are talking about, yes, we're at war with isis the same way we're at war with al qaeda around the world. there's been a change in messaging that occurred over the course of 12 to 24 hours. why the change in messaging? >> we've been clear on this and we'll continue to be clear about what we're going to do, how we're going to do it, and the disciplined fashion how we're going to carry it out to ensure we de gragrade and ultimately
destroy this morganization calld isil. >> two american hostages killed, a british hostage being killed, another threatened. with all the resources at president's disposal, as well as the united kingdom, can you give the american people one reason why this guy is continuing to do this? >> we're obviously outraged at the behavior. we've made clear our determination to make sure we're taking every step possible to protect our people. and then to make sure that the long arm of american justice finds and brings to justice those who prep trait such actions. that's what we're going to do here. >> that's a long goal. what can you do in the immediate to get this guy? i mean, is there no way you can go in and stop this guy from doing what he's doing? >> i've said on your show before, we do what we say, that's what we're going to do. >> another family that has to hear about a tape of a loved one being beheaded.
i don't know if you've seen the pictures, but david haines has a young child. what these families are going through is unimaginable. yet we hear from the families of james foley and steven sotloff that when they met with the white house, they were told, don't dare try to ransom your hostage, because you'll be prosecuted. they're very upset about the way the white house handled this. why would the white house say something like that? >> as a father myself, i can only imagine the very difficult circumstances that the foley and sotloff families are going through. my heart goes out to them. my prayers are with them, obviously. in terms of what was communicated to the families in the midst of many, many meetings over the course of this very difficult circumstance, we obviously made clear that what the law is. we didn't threaten anybody, but we made clear what the law is. that's our responsibility, is to make sure we explain the law and uphold the law. >> they interpret there's a threat. >> the third thing that's really important is we took every
effort and we'll continue to take every effort to secure our people. that included an operation that has now been made public. the president himself said was a risk -- risky and flawlessly carried out in a very daring fashion by our military. hundreds of people in a multiunit, multiplatform effort, which is something we're all very proud. still haunted by the fact we were not able to find our people and rescue them. >> any way you can go back and try that again or is the cat out of the bag now? >> if there is, we'll do it. >> let's take a look at the overall plan here. there's skepticism on capitol hill as to whether or not this is going to work. let's listen to what the speaker of the house said about that earlier this week? >> i'm not sure that we're doing all that we can do to defeat this terrorist threat. and if our goal is to eliminate isil, there's a lot of doubt whether the plan was outlined by the president last night is
enough to accomplish that mission. >> let's look at the way this is going to work. you alluded to this a little earlier. you hope to stand up iraqi forces and work with syrian rebels. iraqi forces cut and ran in the face of the isis threat and there are elements within the free syrian army which seemed to shift allegiances almost on a weekly basis. how exactly is this going to work? >> obviously, gratified by all the efforts the speaker has undertaken in the course of the last week. he and the president had a very good meeting at the white house tuesday with the other leaders. and we're seeing very good progress in congress, including in the house, under the speaker's leadership to make sure that we have the authorities to train and equip those syrian oppositionists on the ground who are fighting isil. that's important. because the alternative, as you know, john, and as you're alluding to, everybody believes there has to be some anvil, some force, ground force on the ground taking the fight to isil. if it's not the syrian opposition trained and equipped by united states, authorized by
congress and president, if congress takes a step this week, it will have to be u.s. troops. the president made a decision on that. we're not going to do that. since that's not what we're going to do, we ought to make sure the syrians are taking this fight, which is their fight, to isil. that's exactly what we're going to do. the iraqis are going to do the same thing. by the way, you referenced the fact the iraqi security forces did not perform as they should have earlier this year. there's no doubt about that. >> that was after years of training and millions upon millions of american dollars being spent to do it. >> and that's after, unfortunately, years of leadership from prime minister maliki. that was sectarian in nature. that pushed out sunnis when he should have been working with sunnis. that's why the president was very prudent and very disciplined in how we used our force so we could move maliki out and get a multi-ethnic government in baghdad so that multi-ethnic government will underscore and support their multi-ethnic forces and those multi-ethnic forces will take the fight on the ground to isil. >> might you run into a
situation where the old adage, if you want something done right, you do it yourself, where you eventually will have to use american ground troops because the iraqis and free syrian army won't be up to the task? there are reports of former commanders of free syrian army now commanding islamist brigades, word of an unaggression pact between free syrian army and isis. can you be guaranteed they'll do what they say they're going to do? >> i just read a report on the nonaggression pact you're referring to is not true. that's one. two, ultimately, this is a fight within islam, within sunni islam, that's why we know ultimately to defeat and destroy isil, something not only in our interest, but countries in the region, they need to take the fight to it. that's what we'll do. we'll build, we'll lead, we'll undergurd and strengthen that coalition but ultimately they'll
help us beat them on the ground. >> there's already about 1,000 u.s. forces in the area. general michael hayden had an op-ed where he said between training syrian forces up, between running the air war from the ground, you'll probably need about a brigade size force, about 5,000 people there. would you dispute that notion? >> here's what i will say. we, as the president announced to the country earlier in the summer, we sent in assessment teams to look at what was happening with the iraqi security forces, what they needed and how we could be able to strengthen them for this fight against isil. a fight, as i said, is every bit as much theirs as it is ours. >> but do you dispute the notion you need about 5,000 people? >> what those assessment teams came back with is a series of options. we added, as you suggested, another 500 troops the president announced in his speech wednesday night. that brings to about a little north of 14,000, i think -- 1400, the number of troops we have on the ground, 1400, carrying out missions to protect
our people, where they are in erbil and baghdad and at baghdad international airport and carrying out this effort to train and equip and make more effective the iraqi security forces. >> so, again, would you dispute the notion you probably need about 5,000, about a brigade, by the time this is all under way? >> you're referencing an op-ed that was written by general hayden that i've not seen. i'm telling you what we're doing now, how we're going to carry out, in a disciplined, effective fashion. >> but there are american troops on ground in the country? >> there are american troops on the ground in iraq. those troops are not oe the ground in a combat role. they're on the ground in a training role and in a role to protect u.s. diplomats and u.s. personnel on the ground in the baghdad international airport, in baghdad itself, and in erbil and north of the country. that's the function they're carrying out. >> will there eventually be u.s. personnel on the ground in syria? >> the president made very clear to the country on wednesday night that the ground forces in
syria will be syrian opposition ground forces. that's why it's so important for congress to enact that effort this week. >> understand the combat forces would be syrian. but will there be american advisers, trainers, whatever, in syria -- >> the president has been clear that ground forces on the ground in syria will be syrians. >> so, can you say today there will never be an american troop on the ground in syria? >> i can say today, john, exactly what we're doing, what the president's strategy is, in which i just outlined is we using our unique capability, air power, isr and training and enhancement and equipping of those forces on the ground, we'll do our part. but we're going to lead an international coalition that includes muslim and sunni muslim states taking this fight to isil. this fight is every bit as much theirs as it is ours. >> thanks for your time. thanks for being with us. >> thanks, john. >> let's bring in former director of the cia and nsa, general michael hayden.
welcome back to "fox news sunday." you heard what mr. mcdonough had to say about troops. do you believe at some point we'll have to have u.s. forces in some capacity on the ground in syria? >> well, i think we will at some point. it might be through covert action rather than more overt activity. the president referred to the syrian opposition just a few months ago as pharmacists and doctors and so on. we've turned on the dime in terms of our expectation for them. so, if we're going to get into this force that he said it was fantasy to rely on to the force that's going to be, as denis said, the anvil in a combined arms operation, they need an awful lot of help. >> let's talk about the size of the troop force. mr. mcdonough said he hadn't taken the time to read the op-ed you had in "the new york times" the other day. how many forces do you think
will need? >> denis admitted we have 1400 personnel in iraq. i mean, armed, armored, wearing boots, on the ground. and the line is going up. we plussed that up by about 500 over the past week. it's my estimation, john, that by the time all the dust settles, for the roles these forces have to play, and i'm not talking about american combat maneuver units here, but in terms of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, logistics, advice, commandle and control assistance, tactical air control parties, look, i'm betting we're up close to 5,000 by the end of the year. >> you really had the quote of the week, general hayden earlier, when you were speaking in which you said of the president's plan, quote, the reliance on air power has all of the attraction of casual sex. it seems to offer gratification but with very little commitment. could you expand on your comments? >> sure. look, the air power thing is
good. i'm 39 years an american airmen. the american air force -- american air power because there will be naval aviation there as well, will perform magnificently and we're going to punish the islamic state. we're going to push the islamic state back with air power. but i don't think anyone believes, denis told you he doesn't believe, air power alone will be sufficient to achieve what the president has set out with regard to our objectives. now, the president in saying we're going to use air power also said we're not going to do a whole bunch of other things. that sent a message to the american people. it might have made some americans comfortable but also sent a message to our enemieene. i think that made them comfortable. it sent a message to our allies. and i think this made them uncomfortable. when you just rely on air power, when you make air power the centerpiece of what you're going to do, people don't doubt your strength. they doubt your intention.
they doubt your will. are you in this, all in, or not? >> so, how do you see this plan working, then, to stand up these iraqi national guard units? i know it was more a function of leadership than anything they cut and ran earlier this year, in addition to the free syrian army, elements of which maybe with us one week and then next us the next week. do you think this plan can work? >> well, i certainly hope it can work. i'm much more comfortable with what our country is doing today than i was, say, 96 hours ago. i think we're on the right trajecto trajectory. you talked about ground forces. i think you can tier them, john. the most competent, most reliable will be the kurds, the peshmerga. and then there's a significant gap down to the regular iraqi army. i think we'll get some units there that will be able to operate well and independently, but not all. then the third group, this is most difficult of all, is the
free syrian army. the syrian opposition. and here, in talking about real organized, sustained, substantial combat power, we're kind of starting from zero to create that kind of force. and that, that is a result of an american policy. not to help that group over the last three years. >> general, if you were a betting man, and i were to ask you to lay a wager, would you bet this plan works or will we eventually have to go to u.s. combat forces on the ground to get the job done? >> i actually think we're going to end up with small american special operations forces, active in this broad theater, both iraq and syria. i don't think you get american maneuver units on the ground, although i must admit, two former commanders of cenconn have suggested that that may exactly be what we will have to end up with. right now i'm not there.
but, jorngs i do think we get to about 5,000 by the end of the year. let me put another sense of scale on this. this is three to five years. this is three to five years even if we are successful. >> general hayden, a pleasure to talk to you. thank you for taking the time this morning. >> thank you. is the president's strategy enough to defeat isis? more on that a little later on. and after a week of scandal and uproar, some are asking commissioner roger goodell, does the national football league have a culture problem? sports commentator jim gray and wendy murphy will be with us to discuss that. than tums smoothies assorted fruit. mmm. amazing. yeah, i get that a lot. alka seltzer heartburn reliefchews. enjoy the relief. [ female announcer ] we love our smartphones. and now telcos using hp big data solutions by offering things like on-the-spot data upgrades --
an idea that reduced overcharge complaints by 98%. no matter how fast your business needs to adapt, if hp big data solutions can keep wireless customers smiling, imagine what they can do for yours. make it matter. [announcer]when we make beyond natural dry dog and cat foods. we start with real meat as the first ingredient. we leave out corn,wheat and soy. and we own where our dry food is made-100 percent! can other brands say all that? for nutrition you can trust and your pet will enjoy... does your food go beyond? learn more at purinabeyond.com.
indicted adrian peterson for injury to a child. he did so with criminal negligence or recklessly. >> texas district attorney announcing indictment of adrian peterson on charge of child abuse. rounding out a week in which the national football league has made the headlines for all the wrong reasons and highlighting, to me of you, is a culture problem in professional sports. sportscaster and fox news contributor jim gray and wendy murphy. jim, let's start with you. this thing with adrian peterson, another big task for roger goodell and the nfl. >> it sure is. it's exactly what he and the league didn't need. adrian peterson is the best running back in the nfl. this indictment and what is contained in it, it's very disturbing that the little boy reportedly is afraid of his father. he's afraid he's going to be hit
in the face. says he has a whooping room. now adrian peterson says this is the way he was raised. the course of discipline. and it's just it's not a good story. the bruises and lacerations that have been found on this child, it breaks your heart. >> wendy, when you listen to peterson's attorney says this is the way peterson was brought up, it's a classic case of the abused becomes the abuser, allegedly. speak to the bigger problem here that this presents to the nfl. >>. >> there is a culture problem within the nfl not only violence against women and clearly children, but a culture of cover-up. that's primarily because, like any institution, certainly like all sports industries, not just the nfl, they want to avoid candle because scandal hurts them at the bottom line. it ruins reputations. it affects their branding.
and the cover-up almost always works. and that's the problem. there has not been sufficient accountability. as the old saying goes, sanctions are for second-stringers. if you're a really good player and you get in trouble, it gets broomed. it's really that simple. there's very little outside accountability because the nfl is so good at insulating itself from the sources of accountability we otherwise expect would step in. prosecutor's offices, police, child protective services and so forth. there's a problem in larger society, too. i want to be clear about this. goodell should take some heat, but there is a lower rate of domestic violence in the nfl compared to domestic violence in the real world. we need to talk about larger society as well. >> jim, let's move on to the ray rice case because it was revealed by espn late last week that in a meeting ray rice and his agent/attorneys had with the
nfl that he told roger goodell exactly what had happened in that elevator. there's also an atlantic county police report that details ray rice hit janay with his hand. but goodell said in that interview, hey, there was ambiguity in that meeting which is why i took the more lenient action i took at the beginning. does goodell have a credibility problem here and could that affect his job? >> it won't affect his job. there's zero appetite from the nfl owners. i've spoken to several of them personally. there have been a number of statements that have come out. zero appetite, john, to fire roger goodell, unless they find he's not truthful. he will not resign. absolutely he will not resign. a credibility problem, yes. he's going to have to restore his credibility. but he also said in in a letter to the players association, which they have yet to respond to, they have yet to say if they'll file a grievance bs the story he was told was substantially different than what ray rice had come to tell him during that meeting.
so while it's reported elsewhere, there's ambiguity and also said it was a different story. >> if there's no appetite among owners for roger goodell to go, despite the national organization for women and others are calling for him to step down, what then can the nfl do in the short term and long term to make this right? >> the nfl can do so much. it's one thing to say you're doing training programs and there's zero tolerance policy, which owners and leadership have said for decades, after o.j. simpson everyone claimed they understood what domestic violence was. they saw the problem in the nfl and they were going to put policies in place to deal with it. they really haven't done enough. one of the problems, i think, is that it has always been about money. how do you change the culture. how do you make an industry that really benefits from these violent men continuing to be able to play.
how do you turn that around and say, some things are more important than money. we care about our fan base. our fan base is increasingly women. women will step up saying, we won't buy tickets, shirts, paraphernalia, we'll hurt you in your bottom line unless you take action. i think we're starting to hear that battle cry now. i do not agree with the national organization for women. let me be clear that they have the moral authority to demand roger goodell step down because they have not yet called for the prosecutor to step down. and the prosecutor is the number one voice. if the prosecutor treats this signed of severe violence against women as a shoplifting charge, which is really what happened here, then everyone in society takes in the message, including roernlg goodell, including the team owners, that this isn't that bad. >> a quick last question for you. if there's no appetite for goodell to go, what are the owners saying to you about
finally getting it, getting a handle on it, making sure they're more proactive about it? >> well, they do have to get a handle on it. they have really tried. you have to understand they're dealing with people who -- these players and these guys who make these incursions and have this wrongdoing is a very, very small minority. it's really wrong to paint the entire national football league and its players and its employees as people who are lawless. it's just not right. yes, maybe the numbers are higher than the rest of society. and, yes, they do have a problem. yes, they need to continue to have vigilance and be much better at it, but to say that this is, you know, a universally widespread ongoing existence, a structural failure at the highest level of all of these people committing these crimes, that's just not true. and there's nothing to support that. >> all right. we've got to leave it is there. jim, wendy, thanks for joining us. appreciate seeing you this sunday morning. >> you bet.
up next, the president finally has a plan to take out isis, but some remain skeptical that it's a winning strategy. we'll talk with two leading senators from the armed services committee coming up next. i am so nervous right now, it's not even funny. oh my gosh... driver 1 you ready? yeah! go! [sfx] roaring altima engine woah! ahhhha! we told people they were riding nissan's most advanced altima race car. we lied... about the race car part. altima, with 270 horsepower and active understeer control. how did you?...what! i don't even, i'm speechless. innovation that excites.
white house, but what does congress think about the president's plan to defeat isis and what role will they play in the weeks and months ahead? joining us now from south carolina is republican senator lindsey graham and here in the studio, rhode island senator jack reed, a democrat. do you have any faith the president's plan is going to work? >> not much. there's probably a pony in the interview you did with mr. mr. mcdonough. when the white house tells the world, we say what we mean and we do what we say, nobody believes that anymore. this is a turning point in the war on terror. we're fighting a terrorist army. not an organization. it's going to take an army to beat an army. and this idea will never have any boots on the ground to defeat them in syria is fantasy. and all this has come home to roost over the last three years of incompetent decisions. so, to destroy isil, what i was told or what i heard in your
interview, won't even come close to destroy isil. it's delusional in the way they approach this. >> senator reed, tough words there. what do you say? >> the president has proposed a comprehensive plan that recognizes this has to be ultimately the efforts of the local regional powers. particularly sunny government, united arab emirates and iraq, particularly. and he is willing to use american air power and american training efforts to empower these countries. but it's their fight. as dennis pointed out, this is a battle within the sunni community about where they're going. radical islamist or -- >> we know the plan. we know the plan, but will it work? >> i think the plan has a great potential to work. first of all, there is the u.s. forces, the air power. second, with the cooperation of the saw dizzies we saudis we'll
syrians to go back into syria. lindsey and i bought support that effort. they're we're going to be, hopefully, backing up the iraqis as they start reclaiming their territory, putting pressure on isil to either -- to move forces back to iraq, to defend their territory that they've captured or to pull back and let us take more iraqi territory back. so, i think the plan is the best possible one because it recognizes this is not just a military struggle. it's also a political struggle. >> it is clearly a political struggle in addition to military struggle because have you to have an inclusive iraqi government that doesn't operate the way maliki government did. >> the first thing i want to tell the american people from my point of view, it is our fight. it is not just their fight. this is a radical islamic army that's pushing the theory of a
master religion. not a master race like the nazis. this is not about bringing a few people to justice who behead the innocent in a brutal fashion. it's about protecting millions of people throughout the world from a radical islamic army. they're intending to come here. so, i will not let this president suggest to the american people we can outsource our security. there is no way in hell you can form an army on the ground to go into syria to destroy isil without a substantial american component. to destroy isil, have you to kill or capture their leaders, take the territory they hold back, cut off their financing and destroy their capability to regenerate. this is a war we're fighting. it is not a counterterrorism operation. this is not somalia. this is not yemen. this is a turning point in the war on terror. our strategy will fail yet again. this president needs to rise to
the occasion before we all get killed back here at home. >> senator reed, senator graham is clearly saying there has to be an american come batted contingent here to fight this. will there have to be u.s. combat forces, special operators, maybe not large divisions, maneuvering divisions, but some component of u.s. fighting forces to get this done? >> we have to mobilize the local forces on the ground. because we have found, i think, through the last ten years, that the most effective fighting forces on the ground ultimately is those indigenous troops, local troops fighting for their own country, their own future. if we make this an american fight, the iraqis, the saudis, gladly step back and let us do as much as we can. that's what they announced, invasion of iraq. we have to empower them, but they have to carry the fight to the enemy. this is a fight within the sunni community. it's a fight that they have to win for their own self-interest. we have to make clear that's the
case. so, our effort, and we can do this very effectively, is to leverage our power, which is air power, intelligence collecting, training. where they'll be some of these units, perhaps. but the idea of putting american combat brigades on the ground to fight the fight that is ultimately about the future of these countries and their success, i don't think that's the right approach. the other factor we have to recognize is there are multiple threats coming out of this area. there is the all al qaeda, who is still trying to send individuals into the united states. there are thousands of lone wolfs who could come back here. so, the idea that isil itself is the only sort of thing we have to fear on attacks of the homeland is not accurate. >> senator graham, what do you say about the idea, which is exactly the flip side of your argument f you make this an american fight, you'll only attract more people to join isis, but the best way to handle this is for indigenous forces to take back their own territory
and kick these thugs out. >> apparently, nobody's been listening to what senator mccain and i have been saying for the last three years. we said train the free syrian army so they can take this fight on. instead of training the free syrian army, the president overruled his entire national security team and abandoned the free syrian army. we're talking about an army now, not an organization. 31,000 is the best guess. holding territory in iraq and syria, the size of indiana, and for anybody to suggest that we can do this with air power alone or this is like yemen and somali, it's disingenuous and delusional. i want a regional coalition. i want the free syrian army in the fight. i want arab countries in the fight. this is what i'm tired from hearing from this administration and friends on the other side and within my party, this is somehow easy and really not our fight. name one arab army you could put together any time soon to deal with a terrorist army of over 30,000 without a substantial american commitment. not the 8 nd airborne, but
intelligence, special forces to go in there and dig these guys out. i'm tired of hearing from this administration how easy this is going to be when it's going to be hard and the consequences of losing, my friend, is that they survive our best shot. this is the last best chance to knock them out. then they will open the gates of hell to spill out on the world. this is not a sunni versus sunni problem. this is isil versus mankind. >> senator graham, unfortunately, is not fired up this morning. senator reed, we have to leave it there. >> let me just say that no one is suggesting this is going to be easy. we are suggesting the best way to do it is so have those people who are in the region, with our help, air power, training, et cetera. one of the dichotomies here is everyone talks about, we don't need no boots on the ground but we have to put a lot of americans on the ground. we have to be very clear. >> senators, thank you so much for joining us this morning. really appreciate it. coming up next, our sunday group weighs in on the president's isis plan. plus, what would you like to ask the panel? go to facebook or twitt
twitter @foxnewssunday and we may use your question on the air. stay tuned for that. i'm m-a-r-y and i have copd. i'm j-e-f-f and i have copd. i'm l-i-s-a and i have copd, but i don't want my breathing problems to get in the way of hosting my book club. that's why i asked my doctor about b-r-e-o. once-daily breo ellipta helps increase airflow from the lungs for a full 24 hours. and breo helps reduce symptom flare-ups that last several days and require oral steroids, antibiotics, or hospital stay. breo is not for asthma. breo contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. it is not known if this risk is increased in copd. breo won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden copd . . . tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking breo.
why pay more for less? call today for a low price on speeds up to 150mbps. and find out more about our two-year price guarantee. comcast business. built for business. everybody believes there has to be some anvil, some force, ground force on the ground taking the fight to isil. if it's not the syrian opposition trained and equipped by the united states, authorized by the president and congress, if congress takes a step this week, it will have to be u.s. troops. the president's made a decision on that. we're not going to do that. >> white house chief of staff mcdona ovment ugh that we will not have ground operations. "usa today" columnist kristin
powers, karl rove and juan williams. let's talk about the language and the messaging coming out of the white house. laura sends us a question on twitter. she says, why are we at war today when we weren't at war yesterday? let me throw it to jim paul. >> i think we are at war. the administration hates the idea because this is a president who said he was here to end wars, so they want to call it something else. but it hardly matters. so, i mean, i think this whole thing -- it's a problematic exercise in the sense that when people around the world are making the decision about whether to sign up to participate in this undertaking, and the united states is trying to minimize it and minimize the american role, they're all in, they're the winning team, i want to join it. so, i think it's regrettable from that point of view. >> is the white house minimizing
the role here? >> i don't think at this point they are. i agree, i don't think it matters that much what we call this. the white house has finally come around, it took a little while, but they have finally come around with the president's speech to say, this is a very serious threat. they are, you know, taking various steps to address. and, look, i also think if you look at -- there has been some success already if you look at iraq. the air strikes that the president ordered did actually roll back isis to a certain extent. so, i think when i hear people suggesting the president hasn't taken this seriously or isn't doing anything to combat this, it's just an incorrect statement. >> karl, the president's relying on authorization for use of military force president bush signed in 2001 and 2002, and he's not going to congress, would it be palatable to ask congress to -- >> we faced this in 2002. we didn't want the vote on the opposition to take place.
we were forced by daschle to do so. president bush wanted congressional buy-in, even though there were arguments to be made that the 2001 authority gave us the authority to go into iraq. i can argue this one around. i can argue it flat. i think the president would be better getting congressional buy-in and it would be better if it came after the election. i want to say one thing. you do not expect the world to ride to an uncertain trumpet. this is an uncertain trumpet. i'm glad the president did what he did on wednesday night. i suspect the outlines of his policy, although i have severe doubts about whether it's going to work. a minor drama is revealing in my mind. john kerry, secretary of state kerry, goes out and says this week -- refuses to say it's a war. and the white house decides very quickly, we got to clean that up. but what was interesting to me is rather than saying, let's call the secretary of state and get him to clean up his own mess. the white house undermines their own secretary of state by sending out the press secretary to correct the secretary of state. now, i don't know whether that
was deliberate, in which case it is, let's undermine our secretary of state, who is supposedly trying to get the world pulled together, or just incompetence they didn't understand they were undermining me. that's what worries me. in the roll out, there's a tension. we heard it, between the goals, sir power, syria, arm and train and the reluctance to have u.s. personnel involved in making those effective. a larger number than 1400 people are going to be necessary to make those effective. and they're not going to be in the green zone in baghdad. they're going to be in the front lines and on the cutting edge of this conflict. >> how much appetite is there in the democratic party, juan, to have american forces if not in an active combat role, at least as close to the front lines as karl suggested? >> not appetite whatsoever. clearly on the part of the american people, we've seen this in the polling, john, a sharp increase in people saying, we need to be involved. we need to take isis seriously.
these beheadings have outraged people. they've seen it as beyond terrorism. they see it as somehow prime evil. it's just awful. let me quickly say here, >> oast med evil. all all of this talk about are we at we not at war? i think the person who e-mailed in has it exactly right. yesterday we heard we're not. i think republicans focused on rhetoric or semantic conversation. because the fact is, they don't have any real ideas for doing anything ideas for doing anything differently than what the president is doing. i remember people saying, the prime minister of britain, he's such a strong leader. they're not willing to get in the fight. they're willing to hold a coat, but they're not willing to get in the fight. >> the president said he would welcome a vote in congress. but it's republicans as well as democrats on the congress's part who don't want any part of
having someone say you authorized this war, it's your responsibility. >> we're going to take a break here, but when we come back, after finishing third in the 2008 iowa caucuses, hillary clinton returns to the hawkeye state today, as the heavy favorite to win the 2016 nomination, that is, if she runs. when it comes to good nutrition...i'm no expert. that would be my daughter -- hi dad. she's a dietitian. and back when i wasn't eating right, she got me drinking boost. it's got a great taste, and it helps give me the nutrition i was missing. helping me stay more like me. [ female announcer ] boost complete nutritional drink has 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d to support strong bones and 10 grams of protein to help maintain muscle. all with a delicious taste. grandpa! [ female announcer ] stay strong, stay active with boost.
is hillary clinton gearing up for a 2016 run? when you look at hillary clinton, she's got vast experience and some democrats are facing a lot of problems when it comes to the president's foreign policy. >> it will be interesting to see what she says about the president's plan for dealing with isis. what she says about things going so bad in so many places, has on her political standing, not just among democrats, where she remains wildly popular, especially in iowa, where she has 59%. nobody else has 15%, or more than 15%. those are things to watch. i think it's as most people do, highly likely that she'll run, but i think it's no guarantee. it's likely that if she ran, we
all thought what back in 2007 that she was shoe in, and i think politics are dangerous in her case and i these they're dangerous in her case. >> what's the affect on -- >> we don't know what's going to be happening in the world if and when she rungs. if things are stable, it probably will look good to her. if things are not stable, then i think it won't look as good because she's going to be held accountable for whatever president obama leaves. and right now, if the election was held today, i think it would be a real problem for her. >> it's already been a problem. take a look at her approval ratings, they declined resip to usually since she left the state department. in the "wall street journal" poll, 40% of americans say that the world is a les safe place, only 26% say more, and 52% of women say it's a les safe place. and republicans in the gallup poll has a 55-32 lead over
democrats on which is the better party to confront terrorism. she's already suffering. who thinks the world is going to be a much saver, placid, peaceful place in the next two years? the president is suffering because of the policies of his administration squandered the peace and she was secretary of state during the first four years he was in office. >> she came in third in the caucus, does she have an iowa problem? >> she finished third, not only behind barack obama but john edwards and if you think back before that, tom harken. he's having the same problem that they're going to attend today. bill clinton didn't run against him because tom harkin was the favored son in the state. i would say that she's got to do
retail politics here. she's got to get on the ground in iowa, she's got to get familiar and friendly to people in a way that i don't think she has done in the past in her campaign stops, i know she's capable of it. i know people that are charmed by hillary clinton. the political class is a little standoffish. political politics, she's actually very good at it. >> i hate to disagree. but i think it's overstated. she lost iowa third, but it was 29.7 to 29.5. she really came in second in iowa. and what happened there was -- >> it was still after john edwards. >> they both were outgunned by barack obama. barack obama ran a new kind of campaign, he went after democrats and independents who had never caucused before. i think they were blind sided by that, she did actually run a
very strong campaign, it was just a little bit outdated campaign. >> she's at 59% in the polling in iowa now, it's hard to say that at the moment she has an iowa problem. remember this conflict with isil is presumed to take years, so we will be in the middle of this war to defeat isis in 2016 and it will either be going well, or going badly. i think a lot of people reasonably fear it won't be going very well. at least the syria piece of it is going to be a big problem. it's hard for me to believe that people are going to look at the world and say she really left us in great shape. she may have been table to skillfully distance herself from the president on all these matters that the people aren't going to hold her accountable. >> one thing we can count on foreign policy redick fors making predictions -- >> why go to iowa now?
why issue the book this year so she has this controversy in the middle of an election year. why go to iowa and race expectations of the political campaign. and more importantly, raise the expectations of what she's going to do to help democrats in this fall's election. does anyone think she's going to be out on the campaign trail in the next 52 days and make an appreciable difference to the democrats? why is she waiting until 2015 rol rolls around? >> there's a possibility here, that americans will rally around the flag and that could help democrats. >> all right. thank you. ladies and gentlemen, great to be with you this week. thanks so much. chris will be back with us again next sunday, we'll see you again next fox news sunday, thank you for joining us.
this week on the journal, editorial report. president obama's war plan. he's unveiled a strategy for taking on isis. but it will be enough to destroy the terror group? and does he have the political resolve to see it through? plus a mixed reaction on political. but does the president need congress to november ahead? and, fresh developments in the irs targeting probe, including a phone call that raises new questions about the justice department's role in spinning the scandal. >> i want the american people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in iraq and afghis